Meeting with Joy Seppala & Dave Boddy - Thursday 27th February 2020 (42 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

Honestly mate, I fail to see where there's any bias. As it said in the opening posts from Mark. Pete has met with Wasps, and future meetings are expected.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Maybe we are at cross purposes. I’m not saying the statement is biased. I’m saying that if you only talk to one side you will be biased whether you like it or not. Currently they’ve only spoken to one side.

 

---

[lifeskyblue]

Can’t say how successful this will be and I’m sure there are as many opinions as there are posters but for me the most important thing is that something is being done...this forum has had an input at the table and hopefully that will continue. Thanks to those who took the initiative and got something achieved while most just sit around moaning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Liquid Gold]

Can’t say how successful this will be and I’m sure there are as many opinions as there are posters but for me the most important thing is that something is being done...this forum has had an input at the table and hopefully that will continue. Thanks to those who took the initiative and got something achieved while most just sit around moaning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not just that things are being done but they are being done openly.

 

[Grendel]

As I say fair play for going and the fact you’ve come away exactly how the Trust have with Wasps kinda proves my point about it not being evil conspiracies but rather the realities of trying to get answers and maintain relationships.

But there are clear questions you haven’t asked.

The big one being Wasps are clearly asking for a Sisu to contact the ECJ and ask for the case to be forgotten. You accepted the non answer about whether this would work but didn’t ask why they don’t try and call Wasps bluff if that’s the case.

The forum was a stadium forum Sandra Garlick set up ages ago with far more detail about the new ground than we have now. Where did it go? Why was it stopped? Likely it was just PR bullshit and if so what’s different this time? You can’t just accept “oh yes we want a stadium” on face value.

In terms of timescales again you didn’t ask, you assumed based on a five year deal but what are the deadlines? If we haven’t found land in the next three years what then? Isn’t this just more kicking it into the long grass while we wait for the state aid case? Essentially we are being told the same thing we have for six years with even less evidence it’s actually happening and are expected to just take this as gospel?

Like I say I get it. You don’t want to annoy them now you’ve got access. That’s to be expected and that’s what’s happened on the other wise with the Trust. The whole situation was so foreseeable and frustrating.

The trust actively weaponised themselves against the club when it became a political football for the council - prior to that it had many many people attend meetings. It was ruined at that point

 

[Grendel]

Frankly to accuse Pete of bias is shameful

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

This is the difference, you and Pete don't have any other motives than CCFC.

You don't want anything out of it, you don't want a seat at the board, you don't have to try and please any other parties and you don't have to give a shit what you do and don't say.

I wouldn't worry about it, you can tell it is pushing the right buttons from that reaction.

I think most here hold SISU, the Council and Wasps in relatively equal contempt. Contrary to the impressions given in local media

 

[Nick]

As I say fair play for going and the fact you’ve come away exactly how the Trust have with Wasps kinda proves my point about it not being evil conspiracies but rather the realities of trying to get answers and maintain relationships.

But there are clear questions you haven’t asked.

The big one being Wasps are clearly asking for a Sisu to contact the ECJ and ask for the case to be forgotten. You accepted the non answer about whether this would work but didn’t ask why they don’t try and call Wasps bluff if that’s the case.

The forum was a stadium forum Sandra Garlick set up ages ago with far more detail about the new ground than we have now. Where did it go? Why was it stopped? Likely it was just PR bullshit and if so what’s different this time? You can’t just accept “oh yes we want a stadium” on face value.

In terms of timescales again you didn’t ask, you assumed based on a five year deal but what are the deadlines? If we haven’t found land in the next three years what then? Isn’t this just more kicking it into the long grass while we wait for the state aid case? Essentially we are being told the same thing we have for six years with even less evidence it’s actually happening and are expected to just take this as gospel?

Like I say I get it. You don’t want to annoy them now you’ve got access. That’s to be expected and that’s what’s happened on the other wise with the Trust. The whole situation was so foreseeable and frustrating.

Where have Wasps said they want them to ask for it to be forgotten even though they know it can't be? Again, it is only you, CJ and Linnell banging that drum. Linnell also said that the indemnity wasn't an issue and as I said, I am sure it would have been him that bullshitted Pete about something.

All they have done is present what was said to make up their minds about it, people will think its bullshit, somebody might believe it. It's just put out there for people to read through. They haven't run to the Telegraph to say "We have been told the new stadium is coming". Just literally posted up what she said to them.

I also doubt that Pete and Mark are that precious about "access".

 

[shmmeee]

Did you actually read it? I have often disagreed with Pete over the years, I have bickered with them about stuff but to say he is going to be biased is nonsense. I remember asking him what protesting at the Ricoh would achieve when he did it.

Pete has actually hammered SISU, local councillors and Wasps from what I can see, it isn't just solely SISU.

Isn't it obvious why people reply to you, maybe it's intentional to get away from the point?

I did read it. Maybe I missed the bit where he asked Wasps questions and reported and then challenged each side with the inconsistencies so we actually get somewhere? Because that’s what you’re saying has happened.

 

[Nick]

Maybe we are at cross purposes. I’m not saying the statement is biased. I’m saying that if you only talk to one side you will be biased whether you like it or not. Currently they’ve only spoken to one side.

Have you even read all of it? You are making yourself look silly now.

As I said, Pete has spoken to ALL sides.

 

[shmmeee]

The trust actively weaponised themselves against the club when it became a political football for the council - prior to that it had many many people attend meetings. It was ruined at that point

Completely agree.

How do you think Wasps and CCC view yours and Nicks behaviour over the last few years?

 

[shmmeee]

Have you even read all of it? You are making yourself look silly now.

As I said, Pete has spoken to ALL sides.

Great. So what did he ask Wasps about the case being forgotten for example? Where’s the thread on his meetings with Wasps maybe I missed it and that’s why I’m “looking silly”. All I can see in this having read through three time’s now is him saying he’s met with Nick Eastwood and he’d be happy to arrange a meeting withJoy and Derek. Nothing about “Wasps say X and you say Y, who is right”.

 

[Grendel]

Completely agree.

How do you think Wasps and CCC view yours and Nicks behaviour over the last few years?

I couldn’t give a fuck how they view it to be honest - if wasps viewed it positively I’d be doing something wrong

 

[Nick]

Completely agree.

How do you think Wasps and CCC view yours and Nicks behaviour over the last few years?

Is this the same shit about my links to SISU? You will just end up embarrassing yourself with a melt down again.

 

[Nick]

Great. So what did he ask Wasps about the case being forgotten for example?

THE CASE CANT BE FORGOTTEN.

Why are you the only person on here who doesn't get that?

Why are you acting so desperate?

 

[shmmeee]

I couldn’t give a fuck how they view it to be honest - if wasps viewed it positively I’d be doing something wrong

And many on the Trust don’t give a fuck what Joy thinks. How’s that working out. Come on you can’t be so dense as to not see the parallels here?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Completely agree.

How do you think Wasps and CCC view yours and Nicks behaviour over the last few years?

They both deserve the criticism they get. So do SISU. The difference is that some don’t understand criticism of one doesn’t imply defence of the other. G is a weapons grade prick on politics but on Wasps he is spot on. More to him

 

[mark82]

As I say fair play for going and the fact you’ve come away exactly how the Trust have with Wasps kinda proves my point about it not being evil conspiracies but rather the realities of trying to get answers and maintain relationships.

But there are clear questions you haven’t asked.

The big one being Wasps are clearly asking for a Sisu to contact the ECJ and ask for the case to be forgotten. You accepted the non answer about whether this would work but didn’t ask why they don’t try and call Wasps bluff if that’s the case.

The forum was a stadium forum Sandra Garlick set up ages ago with far more detail about the new ground than we have now. Where did it go? Why was it stopped? Likely it was just PR bullshit and if so what’s different this time? You can’t just accept “oh yes we want a stadium” on face value.

In terms of timescales again you didn’t ask, you assumed based on a five year deal but what are the deadlines? If we haven’t found land in the next three years what then? Isn’t this just more kicking it into the long grass while we wait for the state aid case? Essentially we are being told the same thing we have for six years with even less evidence it’s actually happening and are expected to just take this as gospel?

Like I say I get it. You don’t want to annoy them now you’ve got access. That’s to be expected and that’s what’s happened on the other wise with the Trust. The whole situation was so foreseeable and frustrating.

I've got to travel, I'll respond to this when I get home.

 

[Nick]

And many on the Trust don’t give a fuck what Joy thinks. How’s that working out. Come on you can’t be so dense as to not see the parallels here?

Parallels?

Lets get it straight.

You tried to discredit me by saying I had freebies from SISU....

Yet when somebody on the Trust board is an ex council leader or their business has a great bank account because of the council it flies under the radar? That's before we even get to people like Johnson and Kalns.

You are trying your hardest to kid yourself there are parallels. Pete has also hammered local councillors and spoken to Wasps.

There is no bias in the slightest, they literally just reported what was said. You having a meltdown about it was predictable. Much like when you tried to play down the stuff about ACL and Wasps years before Sixfields.

 

[Grendel]

And many on the Trust don’t give a fuck what Joy thinks. How’s that working out. Come on you can’t be so dense as to not see the parallels here?

Many on the trust? There’s only about 6 on there and are becoming a laughing stock

 

[Saddlebrains]

Fantastic work bravo

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Not much new news really. Did you ask for a likely timescale on the stadium? They’ve had six years is there anything to indicate the next six will be any different? I swear we were “down to three sites” years ago and now it’s up to six. Any ideas on how it’ll be funded or who will own it? What happened to it last time with the fans forum and everything?

Did you ask about why they won’t request the case is forgotten even if it’s pointless? Did you ask about future legal cases or appeals? Any more details on the indemnity?

Fair play for getting a meeting but seems a bit of a wasted opportunity to just turn up and say “yes yes everything’s lovely aren’t the team doing well” and not actually ask them any questions. Seems just like what many on here slate the Trust for doing with the other actors. Turn up, round of applause, no further forward.

There’s some good challenge in there and I am happy to answer for me and allow mark to answer for him

I think we feel it’s very pro ccfc not sisu
I don’t think I’ve ever thought a new stadium was realistic I now think it is. We didn’t ask about timescales but they are very excited about a particular site (3 weeks comes to mind)

Not sure about funding, ccfc will take all the funds needed to compete. Who knows who will own it. We could and hope to ask more about this. For me this is an ongoing conversation with the immediate priority of getting Coventry back to Coventry.

I think it’s clear we did ask and the answer was there’s no point as the eu will follow up if there’s a case to answer.

the legals and indemnity are part of the nda paragraph

No applause but meeting was respectful and polite as it should be

Next steps are for Joy to talk to Derek and get back to Coventry then we can argue over new stadium

thanks for staying on here and articulating you’re views so well

 

[shmmeee]

THE CASE CANT BE FORGOTTEN.

Why are you the only person on here who doesn't get that?

THE. ITLL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE IF WE ASK!

Fucks sake mate. I can’t make it any simpler.

Let’s say I tell you I’ll give you a million pounds if you ask Holly Willoughby for a BJ. You refuse because she’s definitely going to say no. Does that make sense? Wouldn’t you ask anyway knowing it won’t happen and you get a million quid? That’s what calling someone’s bluff is.

Jesus. You are so obsessed with the other side in this you’re happy for Sisu to piss on you and tell you it’s raining and then go out and scream at anyone who says it isn’t.

 

[topcat]

Great. So what did he ask Wasps about the case being forgotten for example? Where’s the thread on his meetings with Wasps maybe I missed it and that’s why I’m “looking silly”. All I can see in this having read through three time’s now is him saying he’s met with Nick Eastwood and he’d be happy to arrange a meeting withJoy and Derek. Nothing about “Wasps say X and you say Y, who is right”.

The European case is not about the Wasps, it's about the Council and once a complaint is made it will always be actioned. The outcome of the case may have an impact on the lease of the Ricoh and therefore a financial impact for the Wasps. This is what they want to indemnify - any costs the occur as a result of this or any other action will be borne by CCFC. There is no way that anyone could sign that.

 

[Nick]

THE. ITLL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE IF WE ASK!

Fucks sake mate. I can’t make it any simpler.

Let’s say I tell you I’ll give you a million pounds if you ask Holly Willoughby for a BJ. You refuse because she’s definitely going to say no. Does that make sense? Wouldn’t you ask anyway knowing it won’t happen and you get a million quid? That’s what calling someone’s bluff is.

Jesus. You are so obsessed with the other side in this you’re happy for Sisu to piss on you and tell you it’s raining and then go out and scream at anyone who says it isn’t.

Can you link me to where Wasps have said they want SISU to ask for it to be dropped? Why would they want that if they know it can't? Why would you want to pay me to ask her for a BJ when you know it is never going to happen?

As for obsessed, you may want to have a lie down because you are becoming embarrassing. You absolutely hate this because it makes the Trust look bad and one sided, why? You were one of a handful who didn't want that statement to be put out too.

You are the one here with the relative who ran the Trust into the ground siding with people like Haskell and trying to force takeovers and was a council leader. Don't come on here preaching about obsession and bias when you have it pretty much more than anybody on here. (aside from RFC maybe).

 

[ccfclinney]

Well done lads nice read and a bit of transparency

 

[shmmeee]

There’s some good challenge in there and I am happy to answer for me and allow mark to answer for him

I think we feel it’s very pro ccfc not sisu
I don’t think I’ve ever thought a new stadium was realistic I now think it is. We didn’t ask about timescales but they are very excited about a particular site (3 weeks comes to mind)

Not sure about funding, ccfc will take all the funds needed to compete. Who knows who will own it. We could and hope to ask more about this. For me this is an ongoing conversation with the immediate priority of getting Coventry back to Coventry.

I think it’s clear we did ask and the answer was there’s no point as the eu will follow up if there’s a case to answer.

the legals and indemnity are part of the nda paragraph

No applause but meeting was respectful and polite as it should be

Next steps are for Joy to talk to Derek and get back to Coventry then we can argue over new stadium

thanks for staying on here and articulating you’re views so well

If the legals and indemnity are part of the NDA why do we know about them? Why were the club able to bring them up when they made a statement but not when asked questions about it? Who even asked for the NDA because it seems like it mostly helps Sisu avoid answering any questions about the legals.

What made you think a stadium will happen? Because if it’s just salesman swagger from a couple of business people I’d rather hold out for something concrete thanks.

Please don’t take this personally. I told you in PM this was the issue you’d run into and it brings me no pleasure that you have. I wish I was wrong and there was something we could do as fans but each move just makes me more convinced there isn’t and we’ve just got to wait it out until something gives.

 

[oldfiver]

Great. So what did he ask Wasps about the case being forgotten for example? Where’s the thread on his meetings with Wasps maybe I missed it and that’s why I’m “looking silly”. All I can see in this having read through three time’s now is him saying he’s met with Nick Eastwood and he’d be happy to arrange a meeting withJoy and Derek. Nothing about “Wasps say X and you say Y, who is right”.

I think better questions would be
"why are WASPs so bothered by the EU complaint?" which is not against them
"what are they expecting SISU et al to idemnify unless they have a problem?"
"what indemnities exist between them and CCC?"

 

[mark82]

THE. ITLL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE IF WE ASK!

Fucks sake mate. I can’t make it any simpler.

Let’s say I tell you I’ll give you a million pounds if you ask Holly Willoughby for a BJ. You refuse because she’s definitely going to say no. Does that make sense? Wouldn’t you ask anyway knowing it won’t happen and you get a million quid? That’s what calling someone’s bluff is.

Jesus. You are so obsessed with the other side in this you’re happy for Sisu to piss on you and tell you it’s raining and then go out and scream at anyone who says it isn’t.

I've already answered, I'm not sure how to make it clear. They feel there's a case to be answered, so they wouldn't withdraw anyway. But it can't be withdrawn, so it's a moot point. You may not like the answer, but it was asked.

 

[Grendel]

I think better questions would be
"why are WASPs so bothered by the EU complaint?" which is not against them
"what are they expecting SISU et al to idemnify unless they have a problem?"
"what indemnities exist between them and CCC?"

Oh dear now it will be from shmeeee the claim you are Les Reid - we all know it

 

[shmmeee]

Can you link me to where Wasps have said they want SISU to ask for it to be dropped? Why would they want that if they know it can't? Why would you want to pay me to ask her for a BJ when you know it is never going to happen?

As for obsessed, you may want to have a lie down because you are becoming embarrassing. You absolutely hate this because it makes the Trust look bad and one sided, why? You were one of a handful who didn't want that statement to be put out too.

You only read what you want. You literally quoted a post of mine where I say I agree that the trust are biased. I posted the same in at least two other posts and yet you manage to come out with “you’re just angry it makes the trust look biased”. At times you are so dense I’m amazed you don’t collapse in on yourself.

And a link? Really? We’ve heard it from CJ. We’ve heard it from Linnell. That’s the unofficial PR line coming back on the legals that they can’t talk about publicly because of the NDA remember. You really are grasping.

I suspect they won’t do it because they think it will do something. Just like I suspect they won’t commit to either a ground or stopping future legals. Just like I suspect we are out of Cov or at best in a shit Ricoh deal for many years to come.

 

[Deleted member 2477]

Completely agree.

How do you think Wasps and CCC view yours and Nicks behaviour over the last few years?

Who cares what they think

 

[mark82]

There’s some good challenge in there and I am happy to answer for me and allow mark to answer for him

I think we feel it’s very pro ccfc not sisu
I don’t think I’ve ever thought a new stadium was realistic I now think it is. We didn’t ask about timescales but they are very excited about a particular site (3 weeks comes to mind)

Not sure about funding, ccfc will take all the funds needed to compete. Who knows who will own it. We could and hope to ask more about this. For me this is an ongoing conversation with the immediate priority of getting Coventry back to Coventry.

I think it’s clear we did ask and the answer was there’s no point as the eu will follow up if there’s a case to answer.

the legals and indemnity are part of the nda paragraph

No applause but meeting was respectful and polite as it should be

Next steps are for Joy to talk to Derek and get back to Coventry then we can argue over new stadium

thanks for staying on here and articulating you’re views so well

Actually, to correct, I asked them to clarify and they said the target for a new stadium would be 5 years but it's early stages and things can change. Sites, etc are commercially sensitive so couldn't be discussed. As you say, more can be asked in future.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

You only read what you want. You literally quoted a post of mine where I say I agree that the trust are biased. I posted the same in at least two other posts and yet you manage to come out with “you’re just angry it makes the trust look biased”. At times you are so dense I’m amazed you don’t collapse in on yourself.

And a link? Really? We’ve heard it from CJ. We’ve heard it from Linnell. That’s the unofficial PR line coming back on the legals that they can’t talk about publicly because of the NDA remember. You really are grasping.

I suspect they won’t do it because they think it will do something. Just like I suspect they won’t commit to either a ground or stopping future legals. Just like I suspect we are out of Cov or at best in a shit Ricoh deal for many years to come.

What more do you think the club can do?

 

[shmmeee]

I've already answered, I'm not sure how to make it clear. They feel there's a case to be answered, so they wouldn't withdraw anyway. But it can't be withdrawn, so it's a moot point. You may not like the answer, but it was asked.

Right. That’s what I thought. So long story short: Sisu think the case is more important than us being in Cov. Everything else is bollocks frankly. I get that most here would rather the club is outside Cov permanently than CCC possibly get away with something as yet unproven. I disagree but each to their own.

 

[oldfiver]

I've already answered, I'm not sure how to make it clear. They feel there's a case to be answered, so they wouldn't withdraw anyway. But it can't be withdrawn, so it's a moot point. You may not like the answer, but it was asked.

The simple answer is - the complaint is against CCC so there is no reason to ask WASPs anything!